THE

EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE

AND

MISSIONARY CHRONICLE.

MARCH, 1863.

The Controversy on the Pentateuch.*

SOME of the difficulties started by Bishop Colenso are of a character which may be easily solved, whatever opinion be formed as to the number of the Israelites. For example:

It is objected that the court of the Tabernacle could not hold the gatherings of the people. Much is made of the words "the whole assembly," "all the congregation." Curious calculations are entered into about cubic feet, and it is demonstrated that there was not space to accommodate half a million. Let the number be greatly reduced, still there would not be room for all the tribes. But what reader of the Bible, who thinks a second thought, imagines that the historian means that everybody was there, any more than he believes that almost everybody in Antioch of Pisidia was in Paul's congregation, when it is said "almost the whole city came to hear the word ?" Who fancies that the words are to be taken literally, when we say "all the town," or "all the world," was at some particular place? We should smile were any one to go measuring London Guildhall, and then set about gravely proving, that though it was often said the citizens met there in common hall to transact public business, the thing was utterly untrue, because not a fiftieth part of the inhabitants, however densely packed, could stand within the walls.

"

To argue that Moses and Joshua could never have addressed all Israel is equally childish. 600,000 people could not have heard either of them. Of course not-nor a tenth part either. But what then? Would not anybody understand the statement, that Lord Russell, when member for London, spoke to all the citizens from the hustings, -to mean simply that there was a large concourse, which might be regarded as representing the whole city? Why not understand the statement in the Pentateuch in the same way?

Continued from p. 70.

VOL. XLI.

K

Great difficulties are raised as to the institution of the Passover, Ex. xii. 21-28.

To say, after reading these words in connexion with the rest of the chapter, "that in one day the whole population of Israel, as large as that of London, was instructed to keep the passover, and actually kept it," is monstrous. It is plain, from the third verse, that orders were given considerably beforehand-given before the tenth day of the month-as to what was to be done on the fourteenth. This night and this day, afterwards mentioned, must mean-in the connexion in which they occur not the night or day on which the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, but a particular night and day then future, when the event and the ceremonial described should take place. This would allow ample time for all needful preparation. Nor does the narrative necessarily imply that every family in Israel on that occasion kept the paschal feast. The command was given to the elders. To them it was said, "Draw out now and take you a lamb according to your families." The sprinkling of the blood on the door-posts, in order to save from the destroying angel, could only be necessary in the case of such families as were dwelling in the midst of the Egyptians. To describe the case as one in which we have to imagine a message of life and death conveyed without fail to every single family in a population as large as that of London between sunrise and sunset-and that, too, without their having had any previous notice whatever on the subject, and without any preparation having been made beforehand to facilitate such a communication,-is nothing less than to misrepresent and falsify in the most palpable manner the Mosaic narrative.

The march out of Egypt is pronounced impossible. In spite of Moses' statements to the contrary, it is spoken of as "a sudden flight," and is compared to a household of English colonists frightened at dead of night by a tribe of Zulus, who were making direct for the camp, killing right and left. The two cases are entirely dissimilar. Arrangements were previously made for the departure of Israel; the idea of departure had been uppermost in the people's minds for a long time, as Moses' conduct and words all through the series of Egyptian plagues manifestly prove. The people were expecting to leave the house of bondage; and when the time actually arrived for so doing, their departure was that of a nation divinely called to take the wonderful journey; and was conducted by leaders, who were infallibly sure that they acted under the commission of Jehovah. A great deal must have taken place in connexion with the exodus which is not recorded. The history is manifestly incomplete - just an outline of leading facts, nothing more; and it is most unfair, and unworthy of a mind of large thought, and simple, honest purpose, to deal with it as if it gave, or professed to give, a full and entire view of this most extraordinary and miraculous adventure.

Another difficulty is started thus: "The people, we are told, were supplied with manna. But there was no miraculous provision of food for the herds and flocks. They were left to gather sustenance as they could in the inhospitable wilderness. We will," he says, "now go on to consider the possibility of such a multitude of cattle finding any means of support for forty years under these circumstances;" and then we find a number of arguments to prove the incredibility of the story. The statement of flocks and herds being led forth by the people rests on the same basis of authority as the account of the manna. Did not Jesus Christ expressly say to the Jews, "your fathers did eat mann in the wilderness and are dead ?" Was that true or false? If false, what are we to say of the Divine mission, leaving out altogether the Divine nature, of our Lord and Master? If true, if the Israelites did eat manna in the wilderness, then on what ground are we to disbelieve that flocks and herds were taken by the tribes, and were supported by Divine Providence in some way or other, while that Providence miraculously fed the people themselves? The story of the manna and that of the flocks and herds rest originally on the same authority. But why, after all, might not large flocks and herds scattered about, be sustained in a region which, according to the best judges, such as Canon Stanley, was most likely much less barren than at present? The strong language about the forbidding scenery and desolation of the desert, it has been shown, does not militate against this; and, in point of fact, we know that in Moses' time the wilderness did afford pasture land; for "Moses kept the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the back side of the desert." In all probability," Moses and the leaders, with a considerable company, would travel by one path, great companies, pursuing the same main track, would travel by others. The people would doubtless distribute themselves under their leaders, and find water and shelter as they could around the central camp.'

"In the sixth chapter, on "the extent of the camp compared with the priest's duties and the daily necessities of the people," we are told that the "refuse of the sacrifices would have to be carried by the priest himself, Aaron, Eleazar, or Ithamar-there were no others-a distance of three-quarters of a mile" on his own, or six miles on what he supposes to be Scott's computation; and then Dr. Colenso pictures to himself "the priest having himself to carry, on his back, on foot, from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis, . . . even the whole bullock" (pp. 39, 40). First of all, the, six miles must be reduced to one and a half; and then why Aaron could not help his sons, or his sons help Aaron, has to be shown. As there is nothing in Lev. iv. 11, 12, to indicate that it was necessary that the priest should be on foot, or that

* "The Soul's Exodus and Pilgrimage." By J. B. Brown.